Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1887-02-09

EDrxaB Pusx- fr1xxxzarRcxR.
ladders you a this time. nss fur u.
purpose Of wFifinR IN essay, oF unking
An arEument npon this qnealion. ut q
STATE in - clear and cennias manneI
aa may BE able. shs exac4 legal ssasns
Of shis cSnir0ssrag. I do fhis with
the more plaasura becRusa The Pumx-fM-
rK1EznzNcER has undslhtedly falaen
inlo ems OF 500 radical errors In shia
matter. and know tat Il desires ths
exse1 truth.
Firstiy-Then this question has
been tuica decided By the Supruule
Csart Of this Terrifory. Tbs Baprsme
C0nrt Il its July session, A. D. 1855,
very empbafieaiIy affirmed fhs validity
and oonstifntionality Of the amended
sse.ion $3.50, the equal suffrage Law Of
this Territory. Ihs qsesfion wss
direstly raised and pcintsdly dscidsd.
Tue Court was thsn composed Of
0resne. Hoyt. farner and Wingsrt.
As this term Of the Court. -tWo Of TIE
lodges decides this lav 20 Be invalid
and uncoasiii afional, and everybody Is
Wild. The exact truth Is. the Judges Of
the present Supreme Court are equally
divided on the question. and lhe sOme
what absurd position Of the question
sFises from the peoaliar constitution Of
the Court.
sesondIy-Ths constitution Of the
Coart- There are ar districts and
foar Judges, and a. you will see fosr
Disirict Supreme Courts. when tie
oasss from tne firss Judicial district are
tried, the Sapreme Court consists Of
Greene. Hoyt and Turner. When the
cases from the Fourth District are tried,
the Supreme Court IL composed Of
Greene, Hoyt and Langford. when
oases from the Second District are
heard, the Court ID composed Of Greene,
Langford and Turner. And when tbs
cases from the Third District are tried
the Court Is composed Of H0yt. Turner
and LanRford. IL will be readily seen
from this statement that the Judges be-
ing equally divided In opinion on any
question, what absurd results would be
prod1ced. his IL exempli6ed on this
very question. The decision under discus
sion was on = case arising IN the Second
Jadicial District. Had it arisen In the
First or Fourth Judicial Districts the
decision would have been directly and
emphatioally TO the contrary. Further,
had there beea two Gases, one from
either the First or the Fourth DistFicts,
and the other from the second or Third
Districts, we would have had the remark
able spectacle Of two decisions at the
same session Of the court In direct con-
hict with each other. A moments re-
fiecti0n will convincs any one that If the
ladies in the First and Fourth Districts
insist on voting and holding the Offices
10 which they may have been elected, il
the Supreme Court remain a. nov, they
will be sustained in their ascFibsd
rights, while those rights will be denied
TO ths fe males residing In tbs Second
and Third Districts In other words,
the Law will ne enforced In those dis
tricts where the Judges are opposed TO
il. and nuIliied In th0se districts where
the Judges are in favor Of IL. Under
these circumstances the question ad-
dresses itself 20 every well Wisher of the
Territory. Was it discreet and ssemly
under tbs circumstances for two Of the
Judges TO have attempted TO nuIIify the
decision OF July, 1852 Would il not
have been better 10 have stood by the
former decision and the Law until & ma
ioFiiy Of ell the Judges deemed the Law
invalid and unconstitutional?
Thifdly-Judeea LanRford aRd Tur-
ner each delivered elaborate opinions.
LanefoFd's opinion was radical in the
extreme, and covered ell the points il
the case, which was q conviction under
the gambling law before Judge Hoyt,
and in the Fri Of which there were
come women jurors. Judge Turner's
opinion was confused 10 the valicisy Of
the Law qualifying women for voters
and Jurors. His opinion was diQaiEed
and careful statement Of bis views.
LanRford's opinion carried out his
views 10 their logical results without re-
gard TO consequf noes. His views untitled
the Code OF 1881 and nearly all OF the
amendatory laws passed since that time.
In fact, 80 far-reac ling is his opinion in
It's destructive effect that II 10 be q
correct exposition OF the cendition of
oar laws, We are at sea without chart or
compass. Turner vas more cactiOus.
He neither dissented from nor expressly
agreed 10 these sweeping logical dsduo-
tons.
FouFthly-You have correctly stated
in your Thursdays edition the clause in
the Organic Aot of this Territory, the
construction of which forms the bssis
Of this controversy. While do not de-
sire 10 discuss the question in q news
paper, will simply say; First, that the
Congressional construction and practice
Is IN direct conflict with the views Of
judges Turner and Lanoford; and,
Sessnd. il is very doubtful question
as TO whether amendments Of the SEQ
tisn OF Code are within this provision
at all.
FIfthly-The whole truth Of this mat
ter 10 that this decision settles nothing
bat the Law of this particular case.
The prior decision settled the Law Of
that cas-, bat as q general rule of
action the court itself has said il has no
fierce.
S,xthlv-T nounsel avarvhodv "a kaan